BBC licence fee poll.

[Funk]

[redacted]

[Randy Winkman]

Funk said:

I'm on sites where I can get TV series from 30-40 years ago in minutes - not legal of course, but where is the legal alternative?

If thing's aren't legal is there ever a legal alternative?

[technodup]

chrispmartha said:

Eh? The point is the BBC caters for everyone and it should all over every platform, surely that means it is good value for money.

Any other business would know it's market and target that, rather than try to accommodate everyone. The value for money argument is utterly bogus if you simply don't want it.

chrispmartha said:

As for the website it probably is the best all round website in the UK, you seem to be framing that as a bad thing?

It's a bad thing that it's the ubiquitous, default choice because of it's inbuilt advantage. It stifles competition, reduces choice and prevents others from gaining a foothold (although this is changing).

[turbobloke]

technodup said:

chrispmartha said:

Eh? The point is the BBC caters for everyone and it should all over every platform, surely that means it is good value for money.

Any other business would know it's market and target that, rather than try to accommodate everyone. The value for money argument is utterly bogus if you simply don't want it.

Yes a totally bogus argument. So obvious, yet it keeps getting missed.

Those who want to watch it should pay an unsubsidised rate, those who don't watch shouldn't have to pay the BBC slice of the fee which would cut the cost of a licence by 90%.

[Halb]

Funk said:

Absolutely! His post made me chuckle; there is nothing more instant than the internet! Great point earlier about archived/older content too - you can't do that even on iPlayer! I'm on sites where I can get TV series from 30-40 years ago in minutes - not legal of course, but where is the legal alternative?

The BBC is sat on vast amounts of historic programming, all of it gathering dust and/or deteriorating slowly.

When the iplayer first got going, the announcement was that all of the back catalogue would be available to people to use...this quickly was stboxed and forgotten about.

[chrispmartha]

technodup said:

chrispmartha said:

Eh? The point is the BBC caters for everyone and it should all over every platform, surely that means it is good value for money.

Any other business would know it's market and target that, rather than try to accommodate everyone. The value for money argument is utterly bogus if you simply don't want it.

chrispmartha said:

As for the website it probably is the best all round website in the UK, you seem to be framing that as a bad thing?

It's a bad thing that it's the ubiquitous, default choice because of it's inbuilt advantage. It stifles competition, reduces choice and prevents others from gaining a foothold (although this is changing).

It isn't a 'normal' business though is it, it is funded by the public so has to have a broad reach, something which should be celebrated not denigrated, your criticism of the BBC is that it caters for a lot of people, that is what it is meant to do.

[technodup]

chrispmartha said:

It isn't a 'normal' business though is it, it is funded by the public so has to have a broad reach, something which should be celebrated not denigrated, your criticism of the BBC is that it caters for a lot of people, that is what it is meant to do.

It seems sometimes it is (having to pay people market rates, advertising its own programmes) and sometimes it isn't (unique funding, no commercial ads).

My criticism is that its original remit of educate, inform, entertain [everyone] is well out of date. It's not the 60s any more. There's a parallel with government - (I believe) we would all benefit if they would simply do less. The BBC the same.

As an aside, how much free advertising has Glastonbury had from the advert free BBC over the last decade?

[Funk]

Randy Winkman said:

Funk said:

I'm on sites where I can get TV series from 30-40 years ago in minutes - not legal of course, but where is the legal alternative?

If thing's aren't legal is there ever a legal alternative?

I don't understand your confusion. The content is legal, the method of acquisition is not. There is no legal way to acquire it.

[chrispmartha]

technodup said:

chrispmartha said:

It isn't a 'normal' business though is it, it is funded by the public so has to have a broad reach, something which should be celebrated not denigrated, your criticism of the BBC is that it caters for a lot of people, that is what it is meant to do.

It seems sometimes it is (having to pay people market rates, advertising its own programmes) and sometimes it isn't (unique funding, no commercial ads).

My criticism is that its original remit of educate, inform, entertain [everyone] is well out of date. It's not the 60s any more. There's a parallel with government - (I believe) we would all benefit if they would simply do less. The BBC the same.

As an aside, how much free advertising has Glastonbury had from the advert free BBC over the last decade?

Again eh? Are you saying the BBC shouldn't advertise what it is broadcasting? How does that work?

The BBC broadcast the Glastonbury festival (and the coverage is outstanding) so should they not inform people they are broadcasting it?

Does wimbledon get 'free' advertising, does the FA cup, does the Rugby League Challenge Cup, does the Six Nations or are the BBC simply informing you what they are broadcasting.

Why is inform, educate & entertain an outdated concept, seems like a pretty good basis for a tv channel to me.

[Cotty]

Funk said:

I'm on sites where I can get TV series from 30-40 years ago in minutes - not legal of course, but where is the legal alternative?

Which sites can do that?

[technodup]

chrispmartha said:

Again eh? Are you saying the BBC shouldn't advertise what it is broadcasting? How does that work?

So the BBC gets hours of free prime time advertising space on the nation's most popular channels. To add to their billions of ransom money. And people can't see how that perpetuates the problem.

And all the zombies who say they watch it because there are no adverts are so tuned out they don't see BBC adverts as adverts. That's how ingrained their advantage is.

chrispmartha said:

Why is inform, educate & entertain an outdated concept, seems like a pretty good basis for a tv channel to me.

You missed the 'everyone'. Eastenders used to pull 15m viewers, it's now down at 5m. The future of TV is not force fed BBC propaganda.

I don't care if you love the BBC, think it's great etc. I just object to people being forced to fund it no matter if they watch it or not.

[anonymous-user]

technodup said:

The future of TV is not force fed BBC propaganda.

Doing some work recently and a colleague had Radio 5 on, it was full of plugging women's football, no matter how hard the BBC try to force it on the public women's football will never have a huge following.. They will flog a dead horse in the name of diversity.

[Randy Winkman]

Raygun said:

technodup said:

The future of TV is not force fed BBC propaganda.

Doing some work recently and a colleague had Radio 5 on, it was full of plugging women's football, no matter how hard the BBC try to force it on the public women's football will never have a huge following.. They will flog a dead horse in the name of diversity.

So you wont be watching the match on Channel 4 tonight?

[Randy Winkman]

Funk said:

Randy Winkman said:

Funk said:

I'm on sites where I can get TV series from 30-40 years ago in minutes - not legal of course, but where is the legal alternative?

If thing's aren't legal is there ever a legal alternative?

I don't understand your confusion. The content is legal, the method of acquisition is not. There is no legal way to acquire it.

I might be getting confused about the point you were making - but are you pointing out that the BBC cannot compete adequately with illegal websites?

[Cotty]

As for live TV, you can watch that on Youtube. Here is the 2017 Bathurst 12 Hour shown live. I started watching it later in the day due to the time zones

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wmLdnnjC0q4&fe...

[anonymous-user]

Randy Winkman said:

So you wont be watching the match on Channel 4 tonight?

I don't think there's much danger of that, you need a tele for starter's!

[technodup]

Cotty said:

As for live TV, you can watch that on Youtube. Here is the 2017 Bathurst 12 Hour shown live. I started watching it later in the day due to the time zones

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wmLdnnjC0q4&fe...

Also had the Indy500, Champions League Final...

[anonymous-user]

technodup said:

As an aside, how much free advertising has Glastonbury had from the advert free BBC over the last decade?

I'm sorry but you are just being silly with that point.

The BBC televise Glastonbury because millions of people want to watch it on TV, not because Glastonbury needs any kind of advert.

You could in fact argue that if it wasn't shown on TV in such good coverage that the demand for tickets may be even higher, as that would be the only way to see it.

21 million people watched Glastonbury on TV at some point over the weekend this year, and over 4.1 million turned the TV on just to watch Ed Sheeran's performance.

I would suggest those figures are evidence enough that televising Glastonbury is an extremely worthwhile thing to do and a good use of licence fee.

[turbobloke]

Lord Marylebone said:

The BBC televise Glastonbury because millions of people want to watch it on TV, not because Glastonbury needs any kind of advert.

It has nothing to do with any perceived need or lack of need (Glastonbury).

Lord Marylebone said:

over 4.1 million turned the TV on just to watch Ed Sheeran's performance.

There's no accounting for taste.

Shouty screechers and grunty howlers sure are popular these days.

Don't get me wrong, Ed Sheeran's success is great for him and the music business and the UK.

[Halb]

Raygun said:

Doing some work recently and a colleague had Radio 5 on, it was full of plugging women's football, no matter how hard the BBC try to force it on the public women's football will never have a huge following.. They will flog a dead horse in the name of diversity.

Did you know women's football used to be bigger than men's football?